Cargando…

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

BACKGROUND: The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the interval between publication a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steen, R. Grant, Casadevall, Arturo, Fang, Ferric C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397
_version_ 1782276038652329984
author Steen, R. Grant
Casadevall, Arturo
Fang, Ferric C.
author_facet Steen, R. Grant
Casadevall, Arturo
Fang, Ferric C.
author_sort Steen, R. Grant
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3704583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37045832013-07-16 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? Steen, R. Grant Casadevall, Arturo Fang, Ferric C. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work. Public Library of Science 2013-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3704583/ /pubmed/23861902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397 Text en © 2013 Steen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Steen, R. Grant
Casadevall, Arturo
Fang, Ferric C.
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title_full Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title_fullStr Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title_full_unstemmed Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title_short Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
title_sort why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397
work_keys_str_mv AT steenrgrant whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased
AT casadevallarturo whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased
AT fangferricc whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased